Cartographer:It's all well and good to ask us to "trust them" that their software does what they say it does, and nothing else. How about they "trust us" that we're not going to pirate the games, and give us the option not to use their system?

And that is the biggest point, most fundamentally, it limits your choice as a consumer.

Perhaps...

But they are not here to take a moral high-ground, they are running a business.Using the statistics, it seems like there's a lot of pirates and that a lot of people are quite happy to take something for nothing, so I don't see why they should trust, us, not us individually, but us, the people who want to play games, to pay for things.

Besides, if you are so unhappy with Steam doing all of those things, can't you simply update all of your stuff and then just play everything in offline mode from then on?There's not really any issues then.

I'd still have Steam on my system.

It's the functional equivalent of Tesco (UK user here, think Wallmart or equivalent) insisting that everyone who shops in their stores must use a clubcard (store membership card that collects points from purchases, which are translated into vouchers each month, but also tracks every purchase you make in the store for Tesco, and third parties to use), then going out and securing exclusive deals with Kelloggs, Heinze, Mr Kipling etc. (top branded products) so they are only stocked by Tesco stores.Sure, the benefits of the clubcard are legion, but don't even begin to kid yourself that they are free. The information you give up by using it is pure gold from Tesco's point of view and worth many times more than the £10-15 a month they give out in money-off vouchers.

Steam is just as "free", the data you give up is worth so much more than the perks you get for using the system.

If you don't mind and are happy with the deal, then that is fine, it won't bother you in the slightest and you can carry on using it. What isn't fine IMO is the exclusivity, there is no other option aside from "don't play the game".

Cartographer:boot Steam up on a system with an ATI card installed and then one with an nVidia card installed, the prices in the store change depending on your system

Please provide more details. I have not heard of this, and would investigate it thoroughly.

It's well documented, there have been any number of reports on what Steam transmits and the deals done by nVidia and ATI.Google or Wiki it but:

wiki:Steam collects and reports anonymous metrics of its usage, stability, and performance. With the exception of Valve's hardware survey, most collection occurs without notifying the user or offering an opt-out. Some of these metrics are available publicly, such as what games are being played or statistics on player progress in certain games. Valve has also used information from these statistics to justify implementing new features in Steam, such as the addition of a defragmentation option for game caches./snip

Steam allows developers and publishers to change prices and restrict game availability depending on the user's location, causing some games to cost more than those bought from retail stores, despite digital distribution removing the costs of disc replication, packaging, design time, logistics and dealing with retail fronts./snip

According to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Steam's availability is not guaranteed and Valve is under no legal obligation to release an update disabling the authentication system in the event that Steam becomes permanently unavailable./snip

Steam keeps a record of the hardware in the computer it is running on for various purposes, one of which is enabling hardware manufacturers to run after-sale promotions directly to their customers. Both AMD's ATi and nVidia use this feature: owners of ATi's Radeon video cards receive Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, as well as a discount on Half-Life 2, while owners of nVidia's GeForce video cards receive Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, Portal: First Slice (a demo of Portal, now available to all Steam users for free) and Peggle Extreme (now available to all Steam users for free)./snip

StriderShinryu:The statement wasn't that Half Life 2 is a flagship FPS title which, even though I don't personally agree I know it's got enough fans and enough pull to be considered such, I agree with. The statement was that HL2 is/was THE flagship title. Even back then I don't see that being the case. Certainly at it's time it was one of the leaders in the story based FPS games movement, and it had a prequel to build it's hype, but that was a very strong and varied time in PC FPS gaming with the Quake series, the Unreal series, Deus Ex, etc. It seems rather silly to single out HL2 no matter how much you like it as being the flagship given it's competition (and particularly given that this statement is written from the perspective of the game not even being out yet which is where it really started to gain widespread approval).

Quake was only truly popular during its initial release, and maybe a little of Quake 2. From Quake 3 and up the series became more on the obscure side and mostly just played by the die-hard fans of the series. Unreal sorta has the same situation going on. Long-story-short, while you might find a couple recommendations for those two series in a "What FPS titles should I play" topic, they'll be few and far between at best. Then we get to Deus Ex, which while a great game, was always a niche title. A cult hit, if you will. While it's an agile ship that can do some decent damage, it certainly isn't flagship material. Aside from those three titles you have Doom 3 that came out around the same time as HL2, but aside from a momentary time in the limelight, it was quickly forgotten by the mainstream audience.

As for the comment about perspective and that we didn't know back then whether or not Half Life 2 would be any good... maybe you forget just how much hype there was around this game. Half Life was, at the time, considered to be among the (if not THE) best FPS title(s), which made Half Life 2 into one of the most anticipated sequels ever once it was announced. So while we didn't know at the time if it would be a good game, there was too much hype for anyone to really ponder that as a possibility. I would also argue that this is being spoken more from the perspective of "the game just came out and critics and fans alike are raving about it" than a pre-release perspective, since pre-release wouldn't be worried about Steam just yet.

Consoles are just PC's with services hard-locked onto them. Same functions as Steam, except that the PC can do more than just what Steam lets you. How is a console with 360/PS3/etc software on it different than a PC with Steam on it? Please explain your reasoning.

Please provide more details. I have not heard of this, and would investigate it thoroughly.

It's well documented, there have been any number of reports on what Steam transmits and the deals done by nVidia and ATI.

Thankyou for the explanation. I thought you were somehow referring to some sort of shady, discriminatory sales setup, not promotions which are reliant on passively collected data. When my games passively collect data on the hardware I have to optimise my gameplay, I don't mind. As long as I'm not being charged -more- by Steam than the default because I have a certain part, I certainly have no qualms. But that's just me. Again, thankyou for the explanation.

You mentioned regionalised pricing, though, and that pisses me off immensely. Valve claim to have no/very limited control over what pricing is set by publishers, and it seems that they're fine with regionalised pricing. I always wonder if there's some sort of consumer watchdog I can report to about this discriminatory practice, though.

Straying Bullet:Granted, I have stepped out from the PC gaming for quite some time, trading all that lovely hardware upgrading for the comfort of my couch, HDTV and a Xbox360 console.

This sounds much of a hassle for me. I am somewhat 'happy' I am using Xbox Live. Auto-patches, everything in reach with a few scrolling and clicks. Fast and reliable. No activations needed, no idiotic DRM from publishers.

All in all, I wonder where PC gaming is going towards lately. An interesting article!

Welcome to the Dark Side, Straying Bullet. I hope all the X-box Live squealers aren't giving you a hard time when you play multiplayer. But I have noticed what I think is DRM creeping into console gaming nowadays.

In Dragon Age: Origins, there's a bit where you have to sign into the EA Servers. (Albeit, done quickly and automatically.)

If you have a shaky connection to Live and can't sign into EA - some of your DLC won't load. (Such as the new chapter: Awakening.) I don't know if this problem was with my console or if it's DRM though. But either way, I'm totally paranoid about DRM since what EA are doing to the PC Sector of gaming.

Well, I already owned an EA account so for me, it didn't really bothered me concerning to log in. However, afterwards I can access all my DLC whilst being offline. Assassins Creed 2, no trouble whilst being offline.

However, I stay clear from Activision, haven't bought a product in YEARS from them. Microsoft Gaming Studios has my faith in them still. Mass Effect and Dragon Age are my recent EA purchases. I just make sure my 360 won't suffer from DRM crap before I buy the game.

I just hope DRM doesn't get implented into consoles like it has done on the PC's.

JEBWrench:As a long-time Civilization fan, I say this is fantastic news.I have honestly never seen a Civilization game in a brick-and-mortar store in my entire life.

Really? My first venture into Civilization 4 was from Circuit City... It cost 25 dollars, and this was before the expansion.

Proceeded to give me at least 200 hours of entertainment, as well as staying up til about 4-5 a.m on some nights playing.

I honestly think they should have both retail and digital. No harm in having both, and it really would help exposure to some that may not know steam OR retail aspects of the civ series. Hell, that was my very first PC game, I just picked it up because it looked interesting.

JEBWrench:As a long-time Civilization fan, I say this is fantastic news.I have honestly never seen a Civilization game in a brick-and-mortar store in my entire life.

Really? My first venture into Civilization 4 was from Circuit City... It cost 25 dollars, and this was before the expansion.

Proceeded to give me at least 200 hours of entertainment, as well as staying up til about 4-5 a.m on some nights playing.

I honestly think they should have both retail and digital. No harm in having both, and it really would help exposure to some that may not know steam OR retail aspects of the civ series. Hell, that was my very first PC game, I just picked it up because it looked interesting.

Again, applying Steamworks does not equal not having a retail version. If anything, it increases the likelyhood of a retail version (see Audiosurf and Killing Floor, which I've got retail boxes beside me). Steamworks does require the end user to install Steam, get an account and then install the game, regardless of where they bought it from. The installing process is similar to a backup the end user could create at a later date using the Backup feature.

Consoles are just PC's with services hard-locked onto them. Same functions as Steam, except that the PC can do more than just what Steam lets you. How is a console with 360/PS3/etc software on it different than a PC with Steam on it? Please explain your reasoning.

The reasoning? It may serve the same function as a console operating system, but the comparison is meaningless. Significantly, you don't have to pay hundreds of your local currency to install Steam. You don't have to buy another computer to play games that don't use Steam. There is no barrier to entry. Unless a box is ticked in the options, Steam doesn't even start up until you need it to. Your computer is free to do non-Steam related things.

And even then - if we go with this idea, liken Steam to a console, consider it to serve the same function... So what? Where can you go with it? Is there a metaphor you can think of that works? A way of thinking about it that's more intuitive or effective than what it actually is, in this instance: DRM, that happens to have a friends list, game management tab, and a shop? I have (honestly!) been trying to think of something for the last ten minutes. I have found it difficult.

In any case, I don't really get why people are talking about Steam specifically. They're using it as DRM. That is its function, that is why they're requiring people to install it. Shouldn't we be talking about DRM, instead? "Stupid 2K making people need online activation, etc."? I can't help but think that people are missing the point, somewhat. This is 2K. Regardless of the specific program, DRM was going to be involved. Christ, these are the people who shipped Bioshock with SecuROM! SecuROM! Are people surprised that they're using DRM? I don't understand.

Steam has been a broken piece of junk since the beginning. I've had it running on at least 3 different computers over the years and it has never ceased to give me problems. In fact, that goes for ALL content delivery systems. I don't need it, I can count to "one point five" and search the net for patches all by myself. I'm a big boy.

SirBryghtside:What I hate about steam is their online activation system for hard disk games - I have Half Life 2 and Half Life 2 Episode one - they've been by my desk for weeks now - but can't play them because the store ripped me off - they weren't labelled as preowned, but the code has been activated.

Um...that's not Steams fault. The blame is squarely planted on your and the stores shoulders. Now, if you were unaware of Steams code activation policy (one that's used by every single registration program there is), then I can understand. However, if the store knowingly sold you used copies of Valve/Steam games (something they are legally not supposed to do), then it's their fault. You have every right to take back those copies and demand your money back. Just because Valve has the audacity to allow users to register a game key to their account so they can have that game where ever, whenever they want...forever, doesn't mean it's their fault your used copies don't work.

O.T. I can understand some people's dislike of having to play the new Civ game through Steam, but from my point of view, it's no different then if I wanted to play Half-Life 2. If I want to play it offline, Steam can start offline. Besides, getting the benefits of Steams continuous, free updates and patches makes it a complete non-issue for me.

Podunk:My opinion on Steam can be summed up with one question and answer.

Q: Where is my Orange Box disk?A: Who cares, I can play Team Fortress 2 on every computer I get my hands on.

No matter what service (or lack of service) is provided, there will always be something people will complain about.

My thoughts exactly. I can relate to all the hatred towards things like SecuROM, but why all this hate towards Steam? Quite frankly, the only people I've ever known that had any severe troubles with Steam were people that had no idea how to use a computer properly or tried all kinds of hacks, work-arounds, or other such modding and ended up screwing up a file somewhere. It reminds me of that guy who recently did a video review of Steam on Mac. He kept trying to download and play Portal only to have Steam tell him his video card wasn't compatible. Then, when the game failed to start, he bitched about how broken Steam is. Sounds like the common complaint about Steam.

Vigormortis:Quite frankly, the only people I've ever known that had any severe troubles with Steam were people that had no idea how to use a computer properly or tried all kinds of hacks, work-arounds, or other such modding and ended up screwing up a file somewhere.

Reeaallly? Perhaps you don't know many people? Are you only counting close friends and relatives maybe? Or perhaps close friends and relatives who don't play computer games?

I jest. But your statement is provocative and while perhaps true for the limited group of people you "know" it is blatently and obviously false for the wider population. I'm about as computer literate as they come (top level programmer, run a software company, built PCs from parts, installed dozens if not hundreds of OS's, etc) and I have certainly had various problems with Steam in the past. Not recently, but that's probably because I avoid buying things on Steam now?

If Steam malfunctions and won't let you do what you want to do (eg play your game!) then it doesn't much matter how technologically advanced you are, you are still stuffed.

But even ignoring the question of Steam's reliability/lightweightness/etc, the whole digital distribution thing is a worry. Recent DRM is primarily about linking access to your games to an online gatekeeper. Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed 2 debacle is one obvious and extreme example but Steam is in the same category. If Steam's servers became unavailable then you would not be able to install any new games. If they continued to remain unavailable then I believe even offline mode will stop working (it has to successfully login every so often) and all your games become unavailable.

So any game you have from Steam is reliant on Steam continuing in business. If that stops you lose everything. This is the big shift in the last 5-10 years of gaming and it is a serious concern.

Before everyone jumps up and down saying Steam aren't going to go out of business, I agree... for now. However there are dozens of examples around of online services (music, games, etc), including some from big companies (eg EA, Microsoft), which everyone swore would be available for near eternity which have already been turned off after just a few years. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that your favourite service (ie Steam) is somehow guaranteed to be safe forever.

Having owned 5 + steam ID's since 2004 and installed steam on a literal clusterfuck of computers; Intel, Amd, Via, ATi, Foxconn, DFI, ASUS, ECS, Biostar, MSI, Gigabyte, etc and Installed on OS's starting from 2000 sp1,sp2,sp3,sp4, 2000 server, XP sp1, sp2, sp3, server 2003, server 2008, vista, and windows 7. I've never once in 5 years experienced any steam bugs that required more than a reinstall at worse. Fuck I havent even reinstalled steam in a year. I have a partition on my main drive for steam and a partition on my passport drive for on the go steam gaming. I own over 140 games and havent had a problem playing any of them. Also whoever stated prices change with your system config? You're a liar and trolling gtfo.

This doesn't mean I dont also have EAdownloadManager and Direct2Drive installed as well, but I prefer Steam. Unmentioned in the Article Steam also supports MODing which EA and D2D do not. If I buy a Bethesda game or Stalker for instance I can trick out the games however I want. Stalker complete 2009 FTW.

Valve has already stated that should they go out of business you will be given time to download all your games and a patch would be released allowing you to play them permanently.

I'm a Valve fanboy. I've watched interviews with they guys who started the whole thing and still run it. Theyre nerdy fucking gamers just like me. Thats who I wanna buy games from. Nerds who run a company of nerds who make and support good games. You wont get that any where else.

CIV5 being released on steam with steam works is the lesser of evils no matter how you look at it. No DRM, Steam installs on whatever partition you want and is OS independent so its not true Draconian DRM like Ubisoft. Also Steam Play for MAC has been released and Linux should be coming soon. So you wont even need windows to play CIV5 eventually. It's all pluses in my book. I mean I hate to say it this stuff been around forever. I remembered win98 games making me install bink video crap to play. DirectX, Punkbuster, crap always has to be installed. Get over it.

I, personally, am in favor of steamworks for Civ V, because 2K couldn't patch their collective ass out of a damp paper sack if their lives depended on it, to combine about 2 more metaphors than is really sane.

The 'get the patches yourself, but we won't tell you which order they invalidate each other in' approach is really just tragically outdated at this point.

I think that some kind of security is going to be included in the game. So, if that security is a program which also brings some interesting stuff in it (as opposed to only controlling you), i think the choice is pretty simple. Of course, it could not contain any kind of security, but let's face it, we are not in wonderland...

I live in Argentina and I had never bought a single original game (CD)in my entire gaming life (except for nintendo's family game, Super Nintendo, and Sega Genesis, which used cartridges), and I have had PS, PS2, and PC for the past 10 years. Steam was so cheap and so convenient for playing online, that I have already got 5 games since mid-2009, after i got the Orange Box 30 bucks deal.

So, Valve has made quite a deal by reaching out to some other market segment. At least i give them credit for that. In addition, the new Steam is awsome. That coming from a person who is reluctant to change...

I am of the opinion that for as long as Valve stays privately owned, and the current management is in charge (Gabe Newell and crew), Valve is going to remain fairly ethical. And in 10-15 years I doubt I'll have that much time to game anyways.

For the moment Steam is my preffered option as a DRM. I usually pick up games from the store because of their sales. As well as "stocking" games that have long left shop shelves.

Since the new UI update, Steam has been alot more stable for me.

There are some gripes I can understand like installing a game via disk and then having Steam download a large patch which usually doesn't allow you to play the game until it is fully patched.But I've been using Steam for about 6 years now. So I guess I'm just used to it.

Well, I already owned an EA account so for me, it didn't really bothered me concerning to log in. However, afterwards I can access all my DLC whilst being offline. Assassins Creed 2, no trouble whilst being offline.

However, I stay clear from Activision, haven't bought a product in YEARS from them. Microsoft Gaming Studios has my faith in them still. Mass Effect and Dragon Age are my recent EA purchases. I just make sure my 360 won't suffer from DRM crap before I buy the game.

I just hope DRM doesn't get implented into consoles like it has done on the PC's.

I don't think DRM will be as bad on the consoles as it is on PCs for a while yet. It's a lot harder to pirate console based stuff than it is on the PC, plus I get the impression every time you connect to Live, someone on their end is checking what version of the game you use and if it's legitimate or not. (But I could be wrong on this.)

Though much like you, I tend to avoid Activision where I can help it. Though I did lapse on Modern Warfare 2. (Shame on me.)

How about us soldiers who are over in Iraq/Afghanistan/etc.? I had nothing -but- disposable income for a couple years, access to amazon.com, but nowhere to get my personal laptop online. Any game the requires online activation is useless to deployed soldiers, and online retailers do not always indicate when a game requires it. Just because you personally aren't affected by a limitation doesn't mean that it's irrelevant.

I wish more developers took the path of Epic when UT3 came out on Steam. I had already bought a physical copy (I was young & foolish), and was able to enter in my CD key into Steam. Now I can pull out the disk OR fire up Steam if I feel like reinstalling UT3.

Giving customers the option of Steam/not just makes sense if there are going to be physical disks in the first place, and moreso for games like Civ where not everyone will play multiplayer.

Meh... I like Steam. It's a way to keep track of my games without having billions of icons on my desktop (which to me is extremely annoying). I also like this DRM system better than most other games (you can always play in OFFLINE MODE!!!). So I guess to all those whiny little Steam haters out there GTF over it!!!

halo3rulzer:Meh... I like Steam. It's a way to keep track of my games without having billions of icons on my desktop (which to me is extremely annoying). I also like this DRM system better than most other games (you can always play in OFFLINE MODE!!!). So I guess to all those whiny little Steam haters out there GTF over it!!!

I guess, as a substitute for any sort of computer literacy, Steam organising your games for you (a task Windows does anyway, but should you wish it, can be accomplished in seconds all by yourself) could be seen as a plus.

Offline mode still means you have Steam on your system though, and it is still spyware in that it tracks you gaming habits, system info etc. and sends it on to someone else without your knowing.

Also, nice attempt at an ad hominem attack on anyone who doesn't like Steam (though FYI multiple exclamation marks do not add any extra emphasis to your point, they just make it look like you know nothing about punctuation).

piscian:I've never once in 5 years experienced any steam bugs that required more than a reinstall at worse.

We might have a different definition of "problems" if you don't require having to reinstall Steam as a problem. It is true that if you set the bar low enough then Steam is absolutely trouble free... but that requires setting the bar well below floor level!

Frankly Steam is fine for some games where there are a clear benefits to outweigh the hassle. However I really question what that clear benefit is for something like Civ 5.

I to dislike Steam. This might be because the only Steam games I own I purchased retail, and I have had little interest in making use of Steam's other features. Thus, Steam has proved nothing more than a nuisance, and additional program I have to fuss around with to get the games I purchased to work properly. These are the grievances I have against Steam.

1.)It takes control away from the end user - I like to run my computer I my own terms. I want to decide where my programs are installed, what features they are installed if, if they are patched(and then I liked to patch from downloaded .zip and .exe stored on my hard disk), how it runs, etc. and I definitely don't want to log into the publisher's server to verify if I am using their product properly. Steam decides were the program will be installed, and must be active in the background for the program to run. And although their are workarounds, initially its going to try to log onto the internet and patch everything whenever I try to run my Steam games.

2.)You can only install games to one drive - Maybe this isn't true, but I never found a work around for this problem. I have multiple hard drives and hard drive partitions. Should the partition Steam was installed on be full, I can't install Steam programs to another hard drive with empty space. I either need to uninstall Steam, along with every Steam program currently installed, and then reinstall everything to a different drive, or uninstall some other programs sharing the partition with Steam, and reintall them if I want to use them. This is a unnecessary annoyance.

3.)Installing from a DVD is faster and more reliable that the internet - Not much to say here, other than not all internet connections are fast, and downloads can be easily interrupted or timed out.

4.)It takes time to log onto Steam and Install Updates - I have shared other users frustrations as Steam has occasionally taken considerable time to authenticate and load. The client then has to patch. If the program hasn't been used in a while, this takes time. The all loaded Steam programs will patch, unless this has been disabled. Probably not a deal breaker, but again an annoyance.

5.)Steam Breaks - This is true with virtually all software. Unlike Consoles, there are a virtually endless variety of PCs. PCs have an endless number hardware configurations, using different motherboards, processors, memory, hard disk, video cards, ethernet adapters, which are developed by hundreds of independent manufacturers. Then their are numerous operating systems that can be installed on the PC, along with dozens of different drivers of varying origin and version for the hardware components. On top of that you will have background services such and virus scanners that influence how the PC will act with other programs. So while some may absolutely no problems with the service, expect a lot of people to devote considerable time to corrected Steam specific technical issues, and yet others to have a nightmarish time getting the program to work. I have had all sorts of technical problems with Steam, although I was eventually able to fix it by uninstalling, cleaning the registry, reinstalling and then patching. Still, it took several hours to troubleshoot(including trying to get Steam to patch to only watch the installer hang), hours which I could be devoted to playing a game, or ranting about stuff on internet forums.

6.)It serves little or no benefit when only used to install retail software - This is were the hate comes down to. The above problems may be tolerable when you are using other features, but if all you wanted to do was play a game you just purchased in a store, its just this vestigial that serves no other purpose than get in the way of playing a game. As such, it will be appreciated about is much as an intentionally design bug to players who using it only for its DRM functions(or rather, who are FORCED to use it for its DRM functions).

7.)Its not exactly advertised on retail boxes - This compounds the other problems. The "needs Steam to play" requirement will be located in the fine print in the corner of the box, so buyer beware. Individuals purchasing a retail copy hoping to just pop and DVD in the drive and install will be unpleasantly surprised when it instead tries to install Steam if they glossed over the system requirements. Would of been nice of valve to make this little fact a bit more prominent on the box.

The controversy is about having to install a programme that will do absolutely nothing for me bar sit there taking memory.

I have no intention playing Civilization online, mainly because the AI is superb and I am perfectly happy with playing the computer; and secondly I personally don't feel multiplayer is well suited to this particular game.

This is enough of an aggravation for me that I'm seriously considering not getting this game (and I've been a devout fan since the Amiga), I really am not willing to encourage a developing trend of tertiary software requirements.

this among other things is exactly what makes me hate steam. It's got auto update, something I don't need. It's got chat, something I don't need. It's got a server browser, something I don't need. It's got a store that's already online (and thus doesn't actually need to steam client to use so that's a non reason to have steam). Then it's got all this shit I DON'T WANT. I want to go into a shop, pick up a game, pop it in, and play. I don't have the connection speed to DL games, I don't want to have to install steam from a fucking retail disk, I just want my game and I want to actually fucking own it. Give me a fucking CD key or something, but keep this shit away from me!I'm of the mind that BS like this will eventually drive me off of legal gaming. Why is it to hard to understand the phrase, "I don't want steam, leave me the fuck alone!"/rant (it's early)

halo3rulzer:Meh... I like Steam. It's a way to keep track of my games without having billions of icons on my desktop (which to me is extremely annoying). I also like this DRM system better than most other games (you can always play in OFFLINE MODE!!!). So I guess to all those whiny little Steam haters out there GTF over it!!!

between the user name, the lack of punctuation, the triple bash, and the adhominims I don't even have to say anything it's quite obvious you're clueless.

I've missed out on most of the drama (which is strange, considering Civ V is one of the few games I've ever hyped about and looked forward to, even more so than with Civ IV ;-) ), so perhaps you fellow escapists can help me out with this query: Will Civ V not be sold in a retail box at all? (I'll most probably buy it via Steam anyways, since I've always preferred online distribution, bu no retail Civ V does sound like something that might aggravate some fans).

Blackbird71: ...and I sleep well knowing that I truly own all of my games.

So you own literally zero games which have any kind of online DRM? No games with Securom, no games with UPlay, no games with Games For Windows Live, no games with Starforce, no games with ANY online check of any kind?

Correct.

If that's the case, congratulations to you, sir, but I'd then contend that you're not the sort of person who plays popular or big-name videogames. Which is fine, but doesn't really work for most people on this website.

Correct again, for the most part. I do occasionally play a "big-name" game (although it has been a while), but I'm not the sort who feels I have to play every "big-name" out there just because it is a "big-name." I am very selective about the games I play, as my time and funds are limited. Honestly, most of the "big-name videogames" are so much hyped-up crap, that they are easy to avoid. There are occasional gems, and when possible, I pick these up, but as online activation systems become increasingly wisespread, I find myself with fewer and fewer options among the big titles. However, if missing out on a popular title is the price for peace of mind and maintaining my ownership rights, so be it. I still find myself with more games to play than I have time to play them, so as far as I'm concerned, I haven't lost a thing. If that ever changes, I may have to find another hobby, but hopefully consumer rights legislation will be updated to handle these issues before it gets that far out of hand.